Chrisco cops $200,000 fine over misleading lay-buy contract

HAMPER company Chrisco won’t be having a very Merry Christmas after copping a massive fine over dodgy claims.

Chrisco said there was ‘limited evidence of loss or damage to consumers’.

CHRISTMAS hamper company Chrisco has been caught out helping itself to customers’ bank accounts.

In November, Chrisco was found guilty of breaching Australian Consumer Law after informing consumers they could not cancel a lay-by agreement after making their final payment.

Under the company’s so-called HeadStart plan, Chrisco would take the surplus payments and put them towards next year’s hamper — even before the customer had agreed to purchase it.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission took Chrisco to court in late 2014 after a tip-off from the Indigenous Consumer Assistance Network.

The Federal Court fined Chrisco $200,000 fine for making false and misleading representations to consumers about their rights.

The court also found that Chrisco had included an unfair contract term in its 2014 lay-by agreement. A third allegation relating to cancellation fees was dismissed by the court.

“We understand that making purchases by lay-by agreement is a convenient way for many Australians to shop, particularly for products such as Christmas hampers and presents,” ACCC chairman Rod Sims said in a statement.

“The Australian Consumer Law provides that lay-by agreements must be in writing and transparent. Consumers have termination rights at any time before the delivery of the goods, subject to a reasonable termination charge in some circumstances.

“The importance of the penalty imposed by the court against Chrisco is that it sends a strong message to businesses using lay-by as a method of sale that they must meet all of their ACL obligations, and do not mislead consumers about their rights.”

The ACCC argued for a $600,000 penalty, but in a statement Chrisco said the Federal Court noted that the company’s “significant co-operation with the ACCC was evidence of Chrisco’s contrition”.

“When the ACCC brought the matter to Chrisco’s attention in November 2013, Chrisco promptly removed the representation, which had been included in error,” a spokesman said.

“The ACCC also sought an injunction against Chrisco regarding its future conduct, however the Court refused to grant this.

“The Court observed that Chrisco has significantly revised its terms and conditions and the chance that Chrisco will include the term the Court found to be unfair, or any similar term, in its contracts is negligible.”

Chrisco said the court also noted there was “limited evidence of loss or damage to consumers”.

“Chrisco is proud of the role that it plays in helping our customers remove the stress and worry of big bills and debt so they can enjoy a magical Christmas,” the spokesman added.

“Chrisco depends on the support of our customers for its success and we receive hundreds of letters of thanks from them each year.”

[e-mail]